People v. Casio CA2/5
B330780
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 27, 2024Background
- Vincent Robert Casio was convicted in 2011 of two counts of first-degree murder, three counts of attempted murder, and related offenses, with multiple enhancements.
- In 2023, Casio filed a petition for resentencing under California Penal Code section 1172.6 (formerly 1170.95), alleging eligibility for relief due to changes in California law redefining murder liability.
- Casio requested appointment of counsel when he submitted his petition.
- The trial court denied the petition without appointing counsel, briefing, or a hearing, reasoning that the record showed Casio was the direct shooter and no jury instruction on felony murder or natural and probable consequences was given.
- Casio appealed, arguing the court erred in denying his petition without appointing counsel and in engaging in improper factfinding at the prima facie stage.
- The Court of Appeal found the jury had, in fact, been instructed on natural and probable consequences and reversed the trial court’s denial, remanding for appointment of counsel and further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of petition without counsel | None (no appearance) | Trial court erred by not appointing counsel for a facially sufficient petition | Court agreed error was prejudicial; required appointment of counsel |
| Prima facie determination and reliance on record | None | Trial court engaged in improper factfinding at prima facie stage | Court agreed; genuine prima facie case must trigger further process |
| Impact of jury instructions on natural/probable consequences | None | Jury possibly convicted under a now-invalid theory | Court agreed, noting jury was so instructed |
| Requirement for evidentiary hearing | None | Counsel should have been appointed, followed by hearing if not foreclosed | Case reversed and remanded for proper statutory proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (Holding that counsel must be appointed for facially sufficient petitions under section 1172.6 and error is prejudicial if it is reasonably probable the petition would not have been summarily denied with counsel)
- People v. Beaudreaux, 100 Cal.App.5th 1227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2024) (Standard for independent review of summary denial of resentencing petitions and assessment of prejudice)
- People v. Enyon, 68 Cal.App.5th 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Statutory procedure for processing section 1172.6 petitions and requirement to appoint counsel)